I make a lot of assumptions but I find it hard to believe that intelligence even advanced intelligence would be limited given the sheer number of
planets and species that would inhabit them in our solar system alone.

In the 4 Billion year history of life on Earth intelligence only started rearing its head about 3.99+ billion years later (about 5 to 7
million years ago). That means that for about 99.85% of the history of evolution on Earth, evolution seems to have been moving along
without creating intelligence. Only for the past 0.15% of the history of evolution does it seem that intelligence has come about.

Why did it take so long?

Some would say that it took so long because intelligence is simply so complex that it takes a long time evolutionarily to occur. Or it could be
argued that a series of extinction events on Earth would from time-to-time knock evolution back a 100 million years or so, stunting the development of
intelligence. However, the dinosaurs had 200 million years to evolve intelligence, and they didn't, while mammals evolved from shrews to humans in
about 65 million years.

Or is it that evolution had already reached its pinnacle 100s of millions of years ago with very successful creatures such as sharks and crocodilia,
which have barely continued to evolve further over those 100s of millions of years. Life on Earth seems to have been doing fine and thriving prior
to intelligence, as if intelligence was unnecessary for that life to thrive.

In fact, for about 75% of the history of life on Earth, that life was only simple life. Maybe evolution found that being simple life is actually more
evolutionarily desirable than being complex life, and complex life is more of an evolutionary accident, or maybe just a "quirk" of evolution, rather
than being an evolutionary goal.

That being said, I think that the universe is big enough for intelligence (even if intelligence is just an uncommon quirk of evolution) to have
occurred elsewhere. I'm just not sure how common that intelligence is, especially considering that we are not only asking if there is intelligent
life near us in space, but is there intelligent life near to us in time -- i.e., considering the timescale of the cosmos, there could
have been several intelligent alien species near us over the past few billion years, but they no longer exist.

edit on 4/18/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Simple single celled organisms could have easily survived the Big Bang... That is science and proven.

What?

No.

If the universe was formed in order to support life, which it obviously is, why would the formation of life be a simple chance of luck? If life
wasn't always present in some form then there is no reason to suspect that life would suddenly appear at any point in time. Singled celled life and
even more cvomplicated organisms can thrive in the most extreme situations and habitats, so there is no reson to conclude that the most basic
couldn't survive the singularity, that grandfathered all rest of life. Otherwise you must believe in an abiogenesis theory that somehow created a
consciousness from nothing but matter, a matter which does not know that it is matter.

originally posted by: iDope
...Otherwise you must believe in an abiogenesis theory that somehow created a consciousness from nothing but matter, a matter which does not know that
it is matter.

First of all, even if we say that Earth life came from elsewhere other than Earth, there still needed to be a place and time at which that life
ultimately had its start (i.e, an abiogenesis).

Secondly, you seem to be making the assumption that "consciousness" is its own separate thing that just happens to reside in a person, rather than it
simply being a byproduct of brain chemicals giving us the illusion of having a separate consciousness.

edit on 4/18/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Everything has its time and place. Man wasn't around during the evolution of the Dinosaurs and other extinct species. That was due to the fact that
for each phase the overall Atmosphere and Gravity was different. But once all the Elements became more Harmonious, It became time for Man...Here on
Earth Anyways?

Comets are probably the answer, as they Zing around everywhere Spraying the universe...The Sun probably gave the Comet life Elements a ride into the
Atmosphere at light speed like a fiber optic cable, or like Star Trek transporter beam...Lol

So it makes more scientific sense that life just happened, random chemicals joining that spurred metabolism, rather than it being always a product of
the universe? Every single form of life is able to communicate with other life, lifeless matter cannot do that. Therefore lifeless chemicals,
proteins, sugars, cannot communicate with another in order to form life and would have to combine at pure chance and luck, which has yet to be shown
to create life from the unliving.

Secondly, consciousness does not just reside in a person, it resides in animals as well. If it were just chemicals then chemicals would be conscious
as well. It would be as easy as just mixing the chemicals found in our brain or body in a mixing glass and that liquid mixture being called
conscious. If it were just in our "advanced" brains then other animals wouldn't be consciuos either. If consciousness requires a brain then
plants wouldn't be able to send signals of distress to other plants when they are in danger, which happens when you smell freshly cut grass, that is
a distress signal. And yes that is a chemical releasing that is only present when it is cut, but the plant only releases it when it is cut, therefore
it knows when to release it and has zero neural activity.

If consciousness were only a chemical reaction then there would be 100% evidence that every account of ESP, ghosts, telekenisis, OBE's, etc do not
exist at all. Every single account of "finishing anothers sentence" would be explained by independent chemicals with zero connection to the other
person. And yet there is Scientific evidence that supports "mirror neurons" and "quantum entanglement" between another, which supports the fact
that our consciousness is not just mere independent chemicals, independent from each other individual.

It is not 'science and proven' that living organisms could survive the Big Bang. It is poppycock. And what makes you think the universe must have a
purpose?

It is not "science or proven" that a singularity of all matter could occur either, or that there was a Big Bang. What purpose would the universe
serve if it was unable to be seen? If it couldn't harbor life then it would not exist. Life is just like a virus, it finds a way to thrive in any
habitat that can possibly allow life to live. No corner of the Earth is void of life, so why would the universe be?

It is not "science or proven" that a singularity of all matter could occur either, or that there was a Big Bang.

Irrelevant. The point is that you're talking nonsense. No living thing could have existed until matter as we know it came into existence, and that was
some time after the Big Bang. It is not science and it is certainly not proven, although you said in so many words that it was. Don't wriggle and try
to deflect attention from your absurd claims.

What purpose would the universe serve if it was unable to be seen?

Why do you think the universe needs to serve a purpose? I asked you this earlier.

No corner of the Earth is void of life, so why would the universe be?

Because life may only have emerged in one place. I don't happen to believe it did, but I am good at distinguishing between my beliefs and my facts.

So it makes more scientific sense that life just happened, random chemicals joining that spurred metabolism, rather than it being always a
product of the universe?

There is no difference. Those chemicals are products of the universe. But you don't mean 'the universe' as a physical entity, do you? You mean 'the
Universe', a kind of New-Age God-substitute for people who don't have the commitment and the strength of character to actually believe in a God and
follow a proper religion. And yes, it does make more sense — logical, common and scientific — for life to have evolved at random than for it to
have been created.

The universe doesn't "need" to have a purpose, but it does, and that is to support life. If it didn't have a purpose then it would be
uninteresting and pointless to exist, yet it does. The universe comprises of everything and anything, if life couldn't exist anywhere at any point
of time then it's purpose would be very insignificant and only made to smash matter around the cosmos, that would be it's only purpose.

Everything else in the universe has a purpose, every single atom has a purpose, since every atom has been in existence since the beginning of time.
Each atom , each blade of grass, and each person does not need to know their purpose to have one; but each does have a purpose. If you are a believer
in any God of any form, life is necessary for it's existence. If you do not believe in any God, and believe life just happened, some chemicals came
together and BOOM! life started making more life, without the universe it couldn't have happened, there is always a purpose for everything. Nearly
every imaginable climate humans can think of (vacuum, near absolute zero, boiling methane, etc) and create for simple organisms to live in, certain
organisms do survive and also thrive in each situation. Therefore, just like matter, life is also indestructable. Somewhere at all times there is
life in the universe, even one simple microbe on a comet galaxies a way is life waiting for a habitat to multiply, and thus it begins again.

It is not "science or proven" that a singularity of all matter could occur either, or that there was a Big Bang.

Irrelevant. The point is that you're talking nonsense. No living thing could have existed until matter as we know it came into existence, and that
was some time after the Big Bang. It is not science and it is certainly not proven, although you said in so many words that it was. Don't wriggle and
try to deflect attention from your absurd claims.

What purpose would the universe serve if it was unable to be seen?

Why do you think the universe needs to serve a purpose? I asked you this earlier.

No corner of the Earth is void of life, so why would the universe be?

Because life may only have emerged in one place. I don't happen to believe it did, but I am good at distinguishing between my beliefs and my
facts.

So it makes more scientific sense that life just happened, random chemicals joining that spurred metabolism, rather than it being always a
product of the universe?

There is no difference. Those chemicals are products of the universe. But you don't mean 'the universe' as a physical entity, do you? You mean
'the Universe', a kind of New-Age God-substitute for people who don't have the commitment and the strength of character to actually believe in a
God and follow a proper religion. And yes, it does make more sense — logical, common and scientific — for life to have evolved at random than for
it to have been created.

Learn something new every day, eh? Or possibly not.

All matter has always been present, which is the theory of the Big Bang. All matter that exists today, existed during the Big Bang. All energy that
is available in the universe was available at the Big Bang. These are laws that our sciences abide by. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, yet
each living lifeform is energy, so it had to come from somewhere. All life is constructed of DNA, how would simple chemicals and matter randomly
create DNA to form life? It's like what cam e first, chicken or the egg? What came first life or DNA? Without DNA nothing can pass it's genes to
another, the lifeform cannot take shape and grow or replicate. Without a body to support DNA it would be just a chemical without form. It's far
easier to see that simple life always existed rather than by accident or by a God. A God would still need to use the matter available to create life.
If a God could create energy and matter why has noone throughout history ever reported a new star or planet just coming into existence, out of
nothing there was something. Something cannot come from nothing, something must be created from other somethings. Life must also be created from
other life, so it makes more sense to think that life was always here and always evolving and devolving.

What is a proper religion? One who relies on stories to outline their believed truths? A religion that has commercial appeal and millions or
billions of followers? A religion where it is just to change values over time in order to follow mainstream social changes yet it confounds their own
religion? Science is a religion, many refuse to change their beliefs about reality even when repeated scientific eveidence is shown to refute their
preconceived beliefs, therefore they are not scientists and see their knowledge as truth even when it is proven to be wrong, much like religions that
billions follow today.

Is God a product of the universe? if not, where was God before all matter existed? Why was all the matter and energy created? Why would a God
create a universe without putting life upon it, and why wait billions of years? Why not seed it from the beginning and aid it along the way? If
there is no God then how was life created from no life? Random chemical combinations have yet to be shown to make life from nothing. Even if you say
"look at dirt and watch life come out of it," or something like that, well there had to be life in order for dirt to exist, so dirt wis composed of
decomposed life. Each planet, comet, asteroid, star, etc, is formed from one another over billions of years, all spreading life constantly over and
over.

This is just my belief that there is no scientific evidence to disprove, yet scientists will not agree, I don't care, it is my belief that I have
come to over the short time here on this planet, and I didn't need to believe in one single book or taught truth to conceive it. It is my own that
I'm sure others follow.

The universe doesn't "need" to have a purpose, but it does, and that is to support life. If it didn't have a purpose then it would be uninteresting
and pointless to exist, yet it does.

"Purpose", "uninteresting", "pointless", are all man-made concepts that exist purely from our perspective. The universe doesn't have a purpose,
doesn't need to be interesting to anyone, doesn't need to have a point. The universe just is. It exists. If humans or any other thinking beings out
there find the universe interesting, well, good for them, but I assure you that the universe is perfectly able to exist without their interest in it,
or even without them existing in it.

Everything else in the universe has a purpose, every single atom has a purpose, since every atom has been in existence since the beginning of
time.

Unlike us human beings, the universe isn't burdened with philosophical concepts. There doesn't need to be some great purpose to the realities of
physical interactions that make up atoms, molecules, and make some molecules stick together in a form that grows, maintains itself, and divides in
half to make more of such forms.

The universe doesn't "need" to have a purpose, but it does, and that is to support life. If it didn't have a purpose then it would be
uninteresting and pointless to exist, yet it does.

"Purpose", "uninteresting", "pointless", are all man-made concepts that exist purely from our perspective. The universe doesn't have a purpose,
doesn't need to be interesting to anyone, doesn't need to have a point. The universe just is. It exists. If humans or any other thinking beings out
there find the universe interesting, well, good for them, but I assure you that the universe is perfectly able to exist without their interest in it,
or even without them existing in it.

Everything else in the universe has a purpose, every single atom has a purpose, since every atom has been in existence since the beginning of
time.

Unlike us human beings, the universe isn't burdened with philosophical concepts. There doesn't need to be some great purpose to the realities of
physical interactions that make up atoms, molecules, and make some molecules stick together in a form that grows, maintains itself, and divides in
half to make more of such forms.

Wow I had no idea all the cosmological debates had been solved. I mean I know Hubble has found some new stuff with merging galaxies but I guess the
greatest philosophers of our time and of history only needed go to ATS.

Everyone realizes that theories are not much different than beliefs right? The theory of a multiverse is no different than the belief of god through
reason (like diests). The only way you get past the statistical problems of argueing against the finely tuned universe theory is to use theoretical
physics and modeling which I find ironic. The science community is using "faith" to argue science.

I personally like to leave myself open that its all still up in the air and we don't know anything about cosmology.

I will let the atheists and religious zealots wallow in their closed minded box. Besides they already k ow everything anyway.

originally posted by: luthier
Everyone realizes that theories are not much different than beliefs right?

No, scientific theories are very different from beliefs. Scientific theories are tested, and
are based on tangible results. Hypotheses, on the other hand, are closer to beliefs, but they are
still educated guesses that have some basis in the scientific reality.

And where did you get the idea that I discarded any cosmological ideas in my previous post? I only spoke out against enforcing such ideas upon the
universe, for example insisting that the universe has a purpose because we are here.

originally posted by: gortex
This could be more evidence that shows the ingredients for life are widespread throughout the Galaxy and Universe and where a suitable habitat is
found life will evolve and take hold ... we are not alone.

Not alone, huh? I can't wait to strike up a philosophical conversation with those puddles of smelly organic goo.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.